Lampros DAO Delegate Communication Thread

[Euphoria]

Snapshot Votes

---

1. Arbitrum Growth Circles Event Proposal
   Voted - AGAINST
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot voting.

After reviewing the proposal and attending the office hour, we acknowledge the intent behind this initiative to support early-stage protocols and builders in the Arbitrum ecosystem. We believe providing mentorship, guidance, and structured peer discussions can benefit ecosystem growth.

As several delegates have pointed out, we echo with the point that this proposal does not align with the Events budget.

@Farstar

This series is a direct response to findings from the AVI Pilot’s ecosystem investment thesis,

The proposal itself mentions this, suggesting that the initiative could have been better positioned as a follow-up to AVI rather than a standalone event. If that were the case, the value proposition of this proposal would be completely different today.

Additionally, we understand that this program is essential before ETHDenver; however, it should have been planned and proposed much earlier. The timing of the proposal raises concerns about execution readiness, especially with ETHDenver just under four days away.

Another concern that felt important to us in the proposal is the lack of a clear roadmap beyond the three-month program post-reporting. The proposal does not explain how the learnings, network, or participant engagement will continue beyond the Growth Circles.

We believe in the Farstar team and appreciate their efforts in proposing Arbitrum Growth Circles. However, we encourage them to incorporate the feedback from the delegates, refine the proposal with a clearer long-term plan, and see if the revised proposal fits in Questbook Season 3.

---

Tally Votes

---

1. Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting.

Many people want to contribute to the ecosystem, but not all require a full DAO proposal. This program fills the gap by providing structured support and funding to promising projects that can later grow into larger ecosystem players. Without such an initiative, valuable ideas and teams may struggle to get support.

Hence, this program serves as the entry gate for new teams and contributors who want to build on Arbitrum but may not yet have the scale or visibility to seek direct DAO funding.

Regarding the Orbit domain, we previously voted in favor of its inclusion during Snapshot voting, and we continue to support it in this vote. We believe that @maxlomu will manage this domain effectively, ensuring it supports and grows Orbit and aligns with the domain’s goals.

We also have confidence that all elected Domain Allocators (DAs) will manage their domains responsibly, supporting deserving projects while ensuring past mistakes reported by @Entropy from DDA 2.0 are avoided.

Lastly, as mentioned by @Juanrah as well, Strategic Objectives for the DAO are being set up, we expect this program to align with MVP and SOS once it is up. This alignment will help ensure that the funded projects contribute meaningfully to Arbitrum’s and community member’s long-term vision.

With these considerations, we are confident in supporting this proposal.

[Euphoria]

Snapshot Votes

---

1. [CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: ArbOS Version 40 Callisto
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.

We support the ArbOS 40 Callisto upgrade as it ensures Arbitrum stays in sync with Ethereum’s upcoming Pectra upgrades and key EIPs. This upgrade will improve functionality, security, and developer experience while keeping the ecosystem efficient and future-ready.

---

2. Arbitrum Audit Program
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.

We attended both office hours for this proposal and, after reviewing the details, we believe this initiative is worth funding. We support initiatives that remove financial barriers for new projects. Many early-stage teams struggle to secure funding, and audits are one of the most expensive yet essential steps before launching.

Looking at the ADPC’s Security Subsidy Fund Report, we see strong demand for such programs. In just 8 weeks of the program, ADPC received a competitive number of applications from teams. Extending this support for a full year makes sense given the clear demand and potential impact on ecosystem growth.

@JoJo

the nature of protocols who could apply. Understanding that this proposal has a growth nature, we need to clarify if current protocols in arbitrum can apply, if protocols migrating/expanding from other chains can apply. And the answer likely can’t just be a single “yes” otherwise everybody who has to do an audit in arbitrum will come here making life of the committee miserable, there has to be some sort of wording on whom can apply

We also agree with @JoJo’s point that clear eligibility criteria should be outlined for protocols. It is important to define which protocols can apply to prevent the committee from being overwhelmed with applications. We would like to see these details clarified before the Tally vote.

And regarding the miscommunication between ADPC and the AF, we believe a structured communication channel between AF and DAO could help with which initiatives they are working on or planning for the future. Whether through monthly Governance Reporting Calls (GRCs) or forum updates, the DAO should be kept informed about ongoing initiatives. This will help avoid such overlapping efforts and improve coordination in the future.

---

Tally Votes

---

1. Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Tally voting.

We stand by our stance from the Snapshot vote and believe it is better to fund these high-quality projects selected by the committee than to leave them unfunded. Delaying their funding to a future round could slow down the growth and adoption of Stylus, affecting its momentum. By supporting these projects now, we enable more teams to build, experiment, and contribute to the ecosystem, ensuring continued progress without unnecessary setbacks.

We look forward to seeing the impact of these funded projects and how they contribute to the growth of Stylus and the broader Arbitrum ecosystem.

[Euphoria]

Snapshot Votes

---

1. TMC Recommendation
   Voted - #3 Only Deploy Stable Strategy, #4 Deploy Nothing, #1 Deploy Both Strategies, Abstain, #2 Only Deploy ARB Strategy
   Reason -

@Blueweb

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting #3 Only Deploy Stable Strategy,#4 Deploy Nothing,#1 Deploy Both Strategies, Abstain, #2 Only Deploy ARB Strategy in line with the TMC’s recommendation.

We acknowledge the concerns raised by most delegates(@jojo, @paulofonseca , @gfxlabs & others) regarding structuring this vote, suggesting that a multiple-choice format or separate proposals would have been preferable to Ranked-Choice Voting. However, as highlighted by many in this discussion and on Telegram, the need for swift execution takes precedence. Given that the desired outcome is unlikely to change regardless of the voting method, we have decided to #3 as our first choice instead of opting for “DO NOTHING”.

We shared similar concerns regarding the conversion of ARB at historic low, as @curia, @pedrob & others have pointed out and as we mentioned in the STEP v2 Tally Voting Rationale. However, we recognize that there is no universally ‘right’ time for conversion. Given that the ARB-to-stable conversion will take place over three months, we believe that any time is appropriate, as our primary objective is to cover the DAO’s dollar-denominated expenses.

We believe that Gauntlet, Karpatkey, and Avantgarde are the right choices for stablecoin management. We appreciated the research conducted by Karpatkey and Avantgarde before the launch of STEP v1, and their track record outside the DAO reinforces our confidence in this decision.

Regarding their fee model, we would have preferred more partners adopting a performance-based fee structure over a management fee model, as stablecoins can generate superior yields through active management, which should be incentivized accordingly. The current fee structure adopted by Gauntlet and Karpatkey may not optimize stablecoin performance—not due to a lack of expertise but rather a misalignment of incentives within the existing framework. As a result, the deal appears less likely to be a win-win for both parties.

Regarding the ARB Allocation Strategy, covered calls appear to be the right approach. However, there is a lack of clarity on how ARB will be reacquired once it hits the strike price and is converted to stablecoins.

We do not believe that current market conditions are unfavorable, as heightened volatility could potentially lead to higher yields for ARB. Given this, we look forward to the next set of recommendations and expect to see ARB generating stable yields for the treasury in the near future.

---

[Euphoria]

Snapshot Votes

---

1. GMC’s Preferred Allocations (7,500 ETH)
   Voted - FOR, Deploy Capital
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR, Deploy Capital in this proposal on Snapshot voting.

We haven’t looked into all the applications yet, but we would have appreciated identifying 5-6 different protocols, including a mix of native protocols, to bootstrap liquidity on those protocols and signal to other participants about the use of those native protocols on Arbitrum.

For now, keeping this stack idle makes less sense, and as the committee mentions, this is the first round of many to come. We believe more native protocols will be encouraged in future rounds.

---

2. [CONSTITUTIONAL] Proposal: For Arbitrum DAO to register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.

As mentioned in our previous comment, we’re supporting this proposal as it improves the current bridging experience without introducing new risks or costs to the DAO.

We also believe this kind of update doesn’t always need to go through a full proposal process. A more efficient path could be explored in the DAO allowing Offchain Labs or the Foundation to handle similar requests for which they are capable for a fixed term, with clear reporting. This would reduce the governance load for the delegates while maintaining transparency.

That said, we support this proposal and believe it’s a practical, win-win step for both Arbitrum and the Sky team.

---

Tally Votes

---

1. [CONSTITUTIONAL] - Adopt Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting.

As mentioned in our Snapshot rationale, this is a clear and straightforward proposal that supports both the Nova Fee Sweep and the Timeboost AIP, making execution more efficient.

@Arbitrum

Hey everyone, quick update - the auction contracts for Timeboost are actually already deployed on Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova, which can be used for Timeboost.

The update from the @Arbitrum team about the early deployment of auction contracts on both Arbitrum One and Nova shows good foresight and readiness for the smooth implementation once the vote passes.

We’re also eager to see how builders engage with Timeboost and the kind of revenue it can bring to the DAO over time.

---

2. [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

First of all, we would like to thank @RikaGoldberg and the entire team involved in this initiative. The proposal has been live for months now and we recognize the time, effort, and coordination it has taken from the working group to shape it into its current form. We truly appreciate the commitment shown.

We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting.

That said, we agree with some points already raised by other delegates. While the proposal’s intention is great, we think there is still room for improvement, especially around the budget and structure.

For example, the revised budget is still quite high. We feel the team could explore alternative models - for instance, instead of the DAO paying the fellows directly, maybe interested protocols who want governance support could offer stipends themselves. This might better align incentives and also reduce direct costs for the DAO.

On concerns raised by others about whether fellows might leave for other ecosystems after the program, our view is that every investment carries some risk. Some fellows may stay, and some may leave but that’s true for any open ecosystem. The key is to design a strong selection process, which the proposal already includes, and trust it will bring in people with a long-term interest in Arbitrum.

There are also smaller orgs and contributors who want to participate in governance and be part of the DAO but lack the time, knowledge, or expertise. These fellows can help fill that gap. And if they perform well, they may even get retained by teams or protocols later on, which would be a great outcome.

Looking at the curriculum, it seems like an all-round introduction to Arbitrum governance. If the program continues, we’d love to see modules added on OCL, OpCo, MVP, and the upcoming SOS as these are important areas for governance contributors to understand to contribute in the future.

We know our single vote may not change the outcome of this proposal looking at the current status, but we’re voting in favor because we support efforts that bring new talent into the Arbitrum DAO which is needed currently to increase governance participation and build long-term contributor pipelines.

We didn’t get a chance to be involved earlier in this initiative, but if the team plans to iterate on this in the future, we would be happy to participate and contribute in any way we can.

---

3. [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Audit Program
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting.

As mentioned in our Snapshot rationale, we support programs that lower barriers for early-stage teams to build confidently on Arbitrum. Audit costs often block promising projects from launching safely, and this initiative directly addresses that issue.

Since the Snapshot vote, we’ve seen meaningful improvements in the proposal. One concern we had earlier was around eligibility criteria - specifically, how the committee would define which projects can apply. That’s now clearly addressed in the updated version, which helps set expectations and filters out applications that don’t meet the intended purpose of the program.

We also appreciate the added clarity around transparency reporting. Having quarterly updates is good to keep the DAO informed.

Overall, the proposal has shaped up well, and we’re aligned with the direction it’s taking.

---

[Euphoria]

Snapshot Votes

---

1. [Non-constitutional] ARB Incentives: User Acquisition for dApps & Protocols
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.

We appreciate the significant effort put forth by @kamilgorski in this proposal, engaging on the forum over the past two months, and iterating the proposal thoughtfully by addressing concerns raised by various delegates.

We previously shared our concerns about the proposal and it was addressed by @kamilgorski in his subsequent response, strengthening our confidence in the proposal.

We support this proposal because it addresses a critical challenge highlighted in our LTIPP research that short-term incentives alone have not been effective in sustaining user engagement. The approach outlined by the team is different and specifically targets long-term user retention by combining off-chain marketing strategies with clearly defined, measurable on-chain outcomes.

This proposal’s strength lies in its KPI-driven model, where funding is directly tied to performance metrics. This ensures transparency, accountability, and effective use of DAO funds. It also introduces important metrics like Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) and Lifetime Value (LTV), essential for the DAO to understand which user acquisition methods genuinely work.

Additionally, the plan includes a structured reporting framework, allowing the community to gain valuable insights into successful marketing strategies. This transparency can significantly benefit future DAO-funded initiatives, improving overall efficiency and user growth.

---

2. OpCo – Oversight and Transparency Committee (OAT) Elections
   Voted - Split our votes equally between A.J. Warner, Frisson & Patrick McCorry
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We want to start by expressing our heartfelt gratitude to all the candidates who applied for these roles. Each of you brings unique skills and perspectives, making this decision challenging. After careful consideration of all applications and attending the candidate’s pitch call, we have decided to split our votes equally as follows:

@ajwarner90 possesses a deep understanding of Arbitrum’s historical context and strategic needs, having played a key role in its developmental phases as CSO at Offchain Labs. His experience is particularly valuable for the OAT’s responsibility to oversee strategic execution and ensure alignment with long-term objectives.

@Frisson has consistently demonstrated exceptional leadership and dedication across various DAO initiatives and in the working group. His hands-on experience with DAO operations and communications provides him with the insight necessary to oversee OpCo’s daily management and operational compliance or the key responsibilities of the OAT.

@stonecoldpat brings an essential mix of academic and practical blockchain expertise. His background is ideal for supporting the OAT’s role in fostering innovative solutions and ensuring that strategic initiatives are grounded in solid, research-backed methodologies.

The combination of AJ, Frisson, and Patrick will greatly benefit the OAT Committee. Each candidate is well-suited to meet the diverse challenges of the role, from ensuring OpCo’s accountability to spearheading strategic initiatives that drive growth and sustainability within the Arbitrum ecosystem.

By electing AJ Warner, Frisson, and Patrick, we are confident that the OAT will excel in its crucial duties, uphold the highest standards of governance and transparency, and ensure the effective execution of Arbitrum’s SOS and long-term goals.

---

3. TMC Stablecoin Recommendation
   Voted - YES, Deploy Stablecoin Strategy
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting YES, Deploy Stablecoin Strategy for the Stablecoin Strategy in the Snapshot voting.

As mentioned in our previous rationale, we believe that Gauntlet, Karpatkey, and Avantgarde are the right choices for managing the DAO’s stablecoin allocations. We appreciated the research conducted by Karpatkey and Avantgarde before the launch of STEP v1, and their broader track record gives us confidence in their ability to handle these assets responsibly.

Regarding their fee model, we would have preferred more partners adopting a performance-based fee structure over a management fee model, as stablecoins can generate superior yields through active management, which should be incentivized accordingly. The current fee structure adopted by Gauntlet and Karpatkey may not optimize stablecoin performance—not due to a lack of expertise but rather a misalignment of incentives within the existing framework. As a result, the deal appears less likely to be a win-win for both parties.

---

4. TMC ARB Recommendation
   Voted - NO, Deploy Nothing
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting NO, Deploy Nothing for the ARB Strategy in the Snapshot voting.

We are not in favor of proceeding with the ARB strategy in its current form. As we mentioned in our previous rationale, covered calls appear to be the right approach for a native token yield strategy, but there is a lack of clarity around key operational details, particularly how ARB will be reacquired once it is converted to stablecoins after hitting the strike price.

We do not believe that current market conditions are unfavorable, as heightened volatility could potentially lead to higher yields for ARB. Given this, we look forward to the next set of recommendations and expect to see ARB generating stable yields for the treasury in the near future.

---

Delegation Address Update

---

1. Update on Lampros DAO Delegation Address in Arbitrum DAO

We are pleased to announce that Lampros DAO has transitioned to a new delegation address to better align with our branding and operational efficiency. Our previous delegation address was “chain-l.eth” (0xA2D590FEe197C0b614Fe7c3E10303327F38C0dc3), and our updated address is now “lamprosdao.eth”(0xf070cD4b5bA73A6B6a939dDe513f79862bffCd25).

We have actively participated in all proposals with our previous address and will continue to do so with our new address. We wanted to inform all community members and direct future delegations to lamprosdao.eth. Thank you for your continued support and collaboration.

[Euphoria]

Security Council Elections (March 2025)

---

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

Thank you to everyone who applied for the Security Council position. We truly appreciate the time and effort each candidate put into their applications and the pitch call.

We have carefully reviewed all applications and attended the candidate pitches. After going through each profile and considering the skills and experience required for the Security Council, we have decided to concentrate our votes on the following two candidates:

• Fred
• @dennis

As we have limited voting power, we believe it is important to make our vote as impactful as possible. By focusing our support on two candidates, we aim to increase the chances of electing individuals we feel are necessary for the Security Council.

While reviewing the candidates, we considered the technical proficiency required for emergency response and protocol-level decision-making. We paid close attention to the self-reported scores for Golang, Solidity, Rust, and JavaScript shared in the applications. Both Fred and Dennis demonstrated strong and balanced expertise across these areas, which we believe is essential for this role.

We also considered the geographic diversity of the candidates. Having Security Council members across different time zones helps ensure someone is available in case of emergencies and adds to the responsiveness of the council as a whole.